More Like This

Preview

This chapter considers the achievement of mandatory class treatment for punitive damage claims against the tobacco industry. It investigates David Rosenberg's case for mandatory class treatment. Rosenberg's thoughtful case for mandatory class treatment of mass torts rests on central claims. His cross-subsidization argument tries to generalize for class actions as a whole the justification for mandatory class treatment in a conventional limited fund situation. Mandatory class treatment for punitive damages serves the strategic goal of smoothing the path for the resolution of the litigation as...

This chapter considers the achievement of mandatory class treatment for punitive damage claims against the tobacco industry. It investigates David Rosenberg's case for mandatory class treatment. Rosenberg's thoughtful case for mandatory class treatment of mass torts rests on central claims. His cross-subsidization argument tries to generalize for class actions as a whole the justification for mandatory class treatment in a conventional limited fund situation. Mandatory class treatment for punitive damages serves the strategic goal of smoothing the path for the resolution of the litigation as a whole. The allocation to be attained by the mandatory class action is superior not by reference to the yardstick supplied by tort law but only from a broader policy standpoint. Mandatory class treatment would not mark the only direction of experiments with the class action device in the aftermath of Amchem and Ortiz.